Big Sky looking at USD

[zooropa]

Re: Two more Teams??

As I mentioned on the Argus website, how do you coax EIU out of the OVC? It's competitively weak and packed tighter than a tin of sardines. What's the lure of the Summit? Trips to Fargo instead of two hours down the road to SIU-E? Playing UNI in football instead of Austin Peay?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Oh...yLocations.png

(for comparison: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Mi...lLocations.png )

[yoteforever]

Re: Two more Teams??

Several posters have mentioned something like the following:



Please don't take this as criticism: I question how significant that is to recruits and their parents. If it is significant, how do we address that "situation" when recruiting student athletes from Dracula, GA, The Colony, TX; etc.? SF Washington's quarterback, a son of an SDSU player, is going to Montana. My point: not sure this is a big deal to an athlete.

Amen. Not at all. In fact, if the athlete percieves that one conference is either stronger or more reputable than another, then that's the league they want to play in.

Secondly, athletes LIKE to travel, and traveling by plane is alot more appealing than by bus. That isn't a rip on the MVC or Big Sky, I just thinbk those are the facts.

Like JackJD said, when recruiting a kid from Tampa or Atlanta or las Cruces, they want to play at the highest level.

[zooropa]

Re: Two more Teams??

traveling by plane is alot more appealing than by bus.

That's an odd way to spin things when you're shipping kids across two time zones and expecting them to keep up on their studies. *That* is certainly not more appealing than a bus ride to UMKC and back......

And don't forget, USD is the school that bussed its football players to a D2 school in Carolina.

[filbert]

Re: Two more Teams??

Oh come on filbert, do you know how small those [first round] tournament shares are? Minuscule. And you only get them if you win. If SDSU were getting a share of Oakland's 2005 win (and they're not), it'd be like $15k. It'd be one scholarship out of what? 200?

Sacrificing conference stability for the sake of an extra $5k per year per school.... not smart.

SDSU gets more, FAR more, from the NCAA every year as an assistance grant towards its compliance budget.

I plead guilty of Typing While Jet-Lagged.

However, and others have observed this . . . who would have guessed, two years ago, that in 2010 the Summit League would be the relatively stable conference and the Big Sky would be the one desperately casting around for new members?

(yeah, I just wrote a bit of a book. Oh well . . . read on, if you want to . . .)

Executive Summary:
USD should stay in the Summit and accept independent FCS football status. (Yeah, I changed my mind.) Regarding "Two More Teams," I'm not totally convinced that the Summit League would really be in any hurry to add a 10th member to replace Southern Utah, assuming they leave for the Big Sky. I'm sending letters to maybe UALR, Denver, St. Louis (!) and some of the Horizon League schools to see if I can shake loose an established Midwestern D-I school to enhance an on-the-rise Summit League, rather than "settling" for a newbie D-I upgrade, or a low-major D-I.

(Oh, yeah, UND, welcome to the Big Sky. You're the UTPA Of The North. Nobody loves you.)

The book:

The biggest single irritant to most of the Summit League members--that they've been willing to grumble about publicly anyway--has been the trip to Cedar City. If SUU goes to the Big Sky, then all of the sudden the Summit League looks a LOT more geographically coherent, and I think a lot of the inclination of other members (specifically ORU, also to some extent Oakland) to see other pastures being greener is somewhat lessened. Everybody's travel costs goes down a pretty penny due to not having to haul teams out to Cedar City.

Therefore, at least in the case of Southern Utah's departure, it's a case of addition by subtraction for the Summit League.

USD is, for the SL, a different issue. SL is better off with USD as a member--I think there's little doubt. USD is also quite obviously better off with a combo SL-MVFC membership.

I suspect the key to unlocking the situation is: where do Illinois State, Indiana State, Missouri State, and Southern Illinois stand with respect to adding USD as the eleventh member of the MVFC? The conference commissioner has said recently that expansion is "not on the table" or some such thing. We all know how reliable such blanket pronouncements are in the world of college athletics (especially those of us living in Missouri--who just lived through the "Mizzou is definitely in the Big Ten--NO DOUBT" farce this past summer . . .)

NDSU, SDSU, Western Illinois could probably be inclined to vote yes for USD. Northern Iowa might as well, due to geography and recent history--although conference politics in the main Missouri Valley Conference will enter large into their considerations, I'm sure. Youngstown State might be inclined to support in order to strengthen the MVFC--they've got no political dog in the larger MVC issue. So, I can see as many as five votes for USD for Valley Football.

The real question is: How do Bradley, Creighton, Drake, Evansville, and Wichita State feel about a potential membership of USD in the Missouri Valley Football Conference--and how do their positions affect the other MVC members of the MVFC: Northern Iowa, the ISU's, Missouri State, and Southern Illinois? Even if none of the non-football MVC's officially have no say about MVFC membership, it's naive to think that they don't have a serious interest in the Valley brand, an interest that their football-playing MVC conference-mates will take into account when making MVFC membership decisions.

What USD probably needs is for UNI to go all-in with its MVC conference-mates to convince them that a MVFC with almost as many Summit League schools as Missouri Valley Conference schools--with the implication that the Summit League itself is closer to being on the same competitive level top-to-bottom as the Valley -- is not in fact a long-term threat to the Valley. I suspect that this might be an extremely difficult sell. If I was UNI, I sure wouldn't be sticking my neck too far out for USD--no offense to USD intended.

So, I would suspect the door is in fact closed quite tightly for USD membership in the MVFC unless something else shakes loose (like an MVFC member going crazy and moving to FBS or something like that).

Thus, for USD IMHO it all boils down to where does USD want its football team to play? Does it want the annual headache of putting together an independent schedule? We know from our own experience that this is really not a very pleasant experience, year to year. It's a hard way to get by, and it's hard to keep your alumni/donor base fired up when you're not in a conference.

So the question isn't just the additional travel money or student-athlete travel burdens that the Big Sky would cost, or the $500k SL exit fee USD is looking at.

There is no "best" solution for USD, I think. Either Summit League and play football as an independent, or Big Sky for all sports. I think those are their only two options, for the foreseeable future.

I think I've talked myself out of #2 and into #1, however. Summit League is at this moment a MUCH more stable conference than the Big Sky.

Stay in the Summit League, USD. You'll be happier there, even if a Valley Football membership is not in your foreseeable future.

(This conclusion, of course, pretty much guarantees that USD will accept the Big Sky invitation, based on my powers of prediction . . . )

As far as filling out the Summit to 10 members, I'm not sure why the league should be in any particular hurry to do so. It's as stable now as the league has ever been in its history, as far as I can tell. The departure of Southern Utah removes the single largest irritant for all of the other members--that dreadful road trip to Cedar City (the trip being dreadful, Cedar City itself being a quite nice college town).

If Arkansas-Little Rock or Denver, or some other established D-I school that's within the newer, slimmed-down Midwest-only Summit League footprint comes available, then the league should snap that school up. Inquires should be sent to schools like UALR, Denver, and perhaps even some of the Horizon League schools who are tired of looking up at Butler to get to the NCAA tournament (who knows what might happen?) Heck, send an inquiry to St. Louis and see if they're interested in cutting back on all of that travel to the East Coast in the A-10.

If I'm the Summit League, I'm proactively inquiring after established D-I schools, looking to do some social climbing, rather than continuing to live on newbie D-I upgrades like SIU-E or Houston Baptist, or even low-major D-I programs like Eastern Illinois (no offense to EIU--plus the SL really doesn't need ANOTHER football-playing school in another league to worry about).

[SF_Rabbit_Fan]

Re: Two more Teams??

Amen. Not at all. In fact, if the athlete percieves that one conference is either stronger or more reputable than another, then that's the league they want to play in.

Secondly, athletes LIKE to travel, and traveling by plane is alot more appealing than by bus. That isn't a rip on the MVC or Big Sky, I just thinbk those are the facts.

Like JackJD said, when recruiting a kid from Tampa or Atlanta or las Cruces, they want to play at the highest level.

I agree 100% on players from outside the area not caring.

If Montana and Montana St leave the Big Sky, most athletes are going to perceive the MVFC as the stronger of the two.

All I'm saying is that if I'm the parent of a high school football player, and USD in the Big Sky and SDSU in the MVFC are the two choices, I'm trying to get my kid to go to SDSU (or UNI or NDSU). I would want to watch every game possible, and while my kid might think its cool to fly on an airplane, I would rather drive my car full of family members and save a few thousand dollars every fall weekend.

Yes, there would be some kids who still chose USD (ala the SF and Watertown kid that went to Montana). But it would be an uphill local recruiting battle against SDSU, UNI, and NDSU, at least with the parents. All colleges and universities have to recruit athletes from their local area to be successful, and I think the Big Sky makes it harder for USD to do that to do that.

[Nidaros]

Re: Two more Teams??

I agree 100% on players from outside the area not caring.

If Montana and Montana St leave the Big Sky, most athletes are going to perceive the MVFC as the stronger of the two.

All I'm saying is that if I'm the parent of a high school football player, and USD in the Big Sky and SDSU in the MVFC are the two choices, I'm trying to get my kid to go to SDSU (or UNI or NDSU). I would want to watch every game possible, and while my kid might think its cool to fly on an airplane, I would rather drive my car full of family members and save a few thousand dollars every fall weekend.

Yes, there would be some kids who still chose USD (ala the SF and Watertown kid that went to Montana). But it would be an uphill local recruiting battle against SDSU, UNI, and NDSU, at least with the parents. All colleges and universities have to recruit athletes from their local area to be successful, and I think the Big Sky makes it harder for USD to do that to do that.

What, the education majors mean nothing in this consideration, by the SA and parents? That right, its all about football, how silly of me.

[yoteforever]

Re: Two more Teams??

What, the education majors mean nothing in this consideration, by the SA and parents? That right, its all about football, how silly of me.

Nidaros, I understand your comment. But let me ask you a question back, and answer it sincerely how you feel. If you had your choice, and had only 2 options, which one would you pick?

1.) SDSU's athletic GPA was at or near the bottom of the league on an annual basis but contended for (and won some titles) on an annual basis?

2.) The highest GPA in the league, and the best finish you have is a 5th place in football, and that was 3 years ago?

Remember, you can only choose one, and be honest. In fact, I think it is a fair question t post on any fan board.

[SUPERBUNNY]

Re: Two more Teams??

Amen. Not at all. In fact, if the athlete percieves that one conference is either stronger or more reputable than another, then that's the league they want to play in.

Secondly, athletes LIKE to travel, and traveling by plane is alot more appealing than by bus. That isn't a rip on the MVC or Big Sky, I just thinbk those are the facts.

Like JackJD said, when recruiting a kid from Tampa or Atlanta or las Cruces, they want to play at the highest level.

I agree with what you say (I'm heading in to get checked by a doctor) but the thing that is a killer is the travel $$$. Nobody wants to travel by bus but due to tight budgets its a reality. Not smack here at all, but will USD be riding Jackrabbit Lines to play out west?

The great thing for USD is that there are a couple of conferences that have strong interest. SDSU was lucky to have the right conference need a couple of teams at the right time. USD may catch the same break.

SUPERBUNNY

[Jacks-02]

Re: Two more Teams??

Oh come on filbert, do you know how small those [first round] tournament shares are? Minuscule. And you only get them if you win. If SDSU were getting a share of Oakland's 2005 win (and they're not), it'd be like $15k. It'd be one scholarship out of what? 200?

Sacrificing conference stability for the sake of an extra $5k per year per school.... not smart.

SDSU gets more, FAR more, from the NCAA every year as an assistance grant towards its compliance budget.

The first round of the NCAA is about $1M to the conference and I believe it's $1m per appearance, not per win. If you win a game you get another share for the second round as well. We are getting such a small share of the 2005 win because it's on something like a 4 year rolling basis so we don't get much of a share yet, I think this is the first year we'll be getting any money from the conference for the NCAA's. Someone with more knowledge will have to speak up, but I know I've read about this on the board before.

Also there is this quote in the Great Falls Tribune discussing this from the BSC point of view.

http://www.greatfallstribune.com/art...n-league-radar

"The more you invite, the more ways you split up proceeds from NCAA basketball money ... each share is worth about $1 million (to the Big Sky), and when you go from splitting that nine ways to more than that, you lose a revenue piece."

I would assume the same applies to the Summit and if you're talking $1M per appearance that equates to a $25k per year difference between 10 teams and 8 teams. Not huge and not a budget maker but still a two scholarship a year difference.

[jackmd]

Re: Two more Teams??

Nidaros, I understand your comment. But let me ask you a question back, and answer it sincerely how you feel. If you had your choice, and had only 2 options, which one would you pick?

1.) SDSU's athletic GPA was at or near the bottom of the league on an annual basis but contended for (and won some titles) on an annual basis?

2.) The highest GPA in the league, and the best finish you have is a 5th place in football, and that was 3 years ago?

Remember, you can only choose one, and be honest. In fact, I think it is a fair question t post on any fan board.

Option 1 for me. Nice thing is, you don't have to choose between one or the other.

[Jacks-02]

Re: Two more Teams??

That's an odd way to spin things when you're shipping kids across two time zones and expecting them to keep up on their studies. *That* is certainly not more appealing than a bus ride to UMKC and back......

And don't forget, USD is the school that bussed its football players to a D2 school in Carolina.

I'd say it's a wash as far as football recruiting goes. Going Big Sky would likely help recruiting in Arizona, Washington, Colorado, California, etc. just as much as it could hurt recruiting for local players.

[LakeJack]

Re: Big Sky looking at USD

http://www.greatfallstribune.com/art...n-league-radar

University of Montana Athletic Director Jim O'Day said he was aware that the three schools had expressed interest in joining the Big Sky, but said he didn't think any decision would be made soon.

"I haven't heard anything new, although I keep hearing rumors," O'Day said Wednesday from Missoula.

He said any expansion would come at a price to the current nine members.

"The more you invite, the more ways you split up proceeds from NCAA basketball money ... each share is worth about $1 million (to the Big Sky), and when you go from splitting that nine ways to more than that, you lose a revenue piece."

[SF_Rabbit_Fan]

Re: Two more Teams??

What, the education majors mean nothing in this consideration, by the SA and parents? That right, its all about football, how silly of me.

Realistically, football will always play a big factor in the decision, if not the biggest factor. I'm not saying that's right, but to say otherwise is a bit naive, IMO. I wouldn't underestimate the desire of parents to watch their kid play. Many elite athlete's parents have watched virtually every game their child has played in since 4th grade.

What major does USD offer that SDSU doesn't have a comparable major? What majors does SDSU offer that USD doesn't have a comparable major? I know there are some, but unless a kid wants to manage a dairy farm, college coaches can overcome the objections.

There are a lot of factors for athletes and their parents to consider before choosing a school.

All I'm saying is that playing in a conference with only one or two drivable away games will be in a lot of parent's minds, and opposing local coaches will hammer on it. That would put USD at a disadvantage recruiting local kids.

[Jacks-02]

Re: Two more Teams??

Found this old post from Hammersmith discussing shares for NCAA tourney money.

http://www.sdsufans.com/board/showthread.php?t=8125

In the Summit, like most conferences, you don't get more money if you are the school that goes to the tourney. NDSU, SDSU, & IPFW all gave up their share of the basketball payout for three years. Because a share stays in the "system" for six years, our three schools will end up getting 17% of the 2006 share, 33% of 2007, 50% of 2008, 67% of 2009, 83% of 2010, and 100% of 2011's shares onward. Since we weren't even in the conference in 2006 & 2007, and we weren't eligible for the tourney in 2008, I don't think we have a lot of room to complain. In fact, assuming no tournament wins in 2009-10, the arrangement is perfectly fair. Also, both our schools started getting non-basketball NCAA payouts last fall(2008). Those payouts come straight to the school and aren't affected by the agreement we made with the Summit.

BTW, the real winner this year(and for the next 6) is the OVC. With Morehead State's win tonight in the play-in game, they just secured another share of the 2009 pie. That's around $1.5 million for 40 minutes of work(adjusting for future inflation).

[FargoBison]

Re: Two more Teams??

I don't think the travel in the Big Sky is really a positive for recruiting. The players aren't going on vacation here, instead they will spending hours in airports and the rest of the time studying or playing/preparing for games. The coaches from the XDSU's could tell them about the harsh realities of all those far away road games if the UXD's wanted to try to use that as a positive in recruiting battles.

But really the one thing that will hurt the most is that the UXD's will be playing a majority of their games out of region. The Summit puts you in Michigan, Missouri, Oklahoma, Illinois and Indiana. Getting recruits from those states will be easier than some location a thousand miles away where people think of the Dakota's as the frozen tundra.

The only the sport that it helps is football since they fly charter, they only play 11 games and it gives them a conference. Every other sport at USD loses, their teams will live on the road and they will be far removed from their prime recruiting areas in the Midwest.